Election 2020 Election Fraud: Let's face it, this year will be a shitshow

Spartan303

In Captain America we Trust!
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Osaul
I don't expect you to believe her. I think it would be reasonable to believe her, given the evidence, but I don't expect that to happen.


What evidence? There was none presented.

Trump literally asked for the Russians to steal information from his opponent on television. I agree he didn't successfully coordinate with the Russians, but that seems more to do with him being an incompetent surrounded by incompetents. The spirit was willing, but the talent was lacking. Likewise, he tried to generate a smear against Joe Biden in Ukraine, but failed to actually pull it off. He's violated the emoluments clause in very obvious, uncontroversial ways as well. Trump isn't Machiavelli. He's still the same racist huckster he was when he was shilling bad steaks and fake diplomas.


what evidence? Where are the audio tapes? Where are the sworn affidavits? As for him being a Racist...curious how he was the most beloved man of the NAACP and the Black Community...until he became a Republican. Very telling indeed.

Y'all do in fact have nothing. As much as Trump and Giuliani and co. put on a show for Twitter and OAN, in the actual courtroom, where the decision is made and where Trump's lawyers have so far been unwilling to perjure themselves, they have admitted the have nothing, and judges have treated their cases appropriately. My favorite exchange was the one where the Trump lawyers claimed the campaign wasn't allowed to observe the ballot counting process. When the judge asked if anyone from the campaign was present the Trump lawyer replied there were a "nonzero number" of them.

Lol, okay. sure. The Media has been playing that game for a while now. But the truth is, Trump is gaining momentum. Now whether its enough to sway the election I'm still not sure on. Time will tell if that's the case. But this little exchange has been instructive on some of what I can expect from some others who believe as you do. And with that I'm going to have to end this exchange with you. I wish you well, but we clearly aren't going to agree on anything and I don't have the time, energy nor patience to continue back and forth over multiple pages. Take care. No hard feelings but I'm out.
 

mesonoxian

Well-known member

The allegation of rape by Ivana Trump was made in their divorce hearing, which is sealed, but it has been confirmed to be present. You'll see Trump supporters claim she recanted, but she said the event occurred, just that she wouldn't call it rape "in the legal sense". Which is almost certainly a requirement of their settlement. Trump's lawyer tried to defend him by claiming you can't rape your spouse.


Plus you know:

EcsWdImWAAEWI-r.jpg:small

IB4 its the "grab em by the pussy line" of just talking to people and the left can only take thing literally and not meme or joke or even exxagerate in general.

It was a literal confession obviously, of what he does to all women he encounters
Given the long string of women accusing him of groping them back to the 1980s, you're apparently right.
You're assuming an expert brought in to personally verify signatures would use a signature verification machine why?
We know nothing about the "expert", except that they were described as such by one of Trump's lawyers on Twitter. There is no indication this is an expert in signature verification, rather than an expert witness called to testify to the results of the scan. If this is even an accurate report.
 

mesonoxian

Well-known member
once again, back to accusations=proof

unless its against a democrat
literal video evidence of Biden molesting children on TV and nothing

course its not "technically molesting" "in a legal sense"
Video of a guy touching a kid's shoulder: molestation. Actual admission to sexual assault after years of being accused of sexual assault: just locker room talk.

This comparison doesn't work the way you want it to.
 

Isem

Well-known member
Tara Reade's story actually did fall apart. For that matter, so did the third Kavanagh accuser's.
According to who? The media who refused to air it and then promptly called the idea of "believe all women" a right wing trap because it was being applied to Joe Biden? That media?
You know whose didn't? Leeann Tweeden. Al Franken was removed from his position (and rightfully so) for kissing her against her will and groping women.
That's a nice story but I'm not sure why it matters.
Meanwhile, the Republicans ran a pedophile for office in Alabama. (Thank God the people of Alabama were too decent to let them get away with it.) I don't say this as someone who thinks highly of the Democrats. Throwing out abusers and rapists is the bear minimum that should be expected. It just isn't always accomplished.
You do realize anyone can run as a republican right? It's how we got the story of an antipolice satanist running for sheriff and winning because no one bothered to check. It's also technically how we got Trump in the first place, there are no real controls over who can run as one.
Meanwhile, Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, violently abused and sexually assaulted his wife, and has a long list of women who says he groped them.
Ah the infamous let you grab them by the pussy line. Truly sterling evidence that.

As to the rest, one is from divorce court and if there's one thing I've learned about that particular court it's that anything one hears in it should be taken with a grain of salt due to the ugly nature of divorce proceedings.

And then we get to "women claim they were groped by a rich billionaire but have no evidence to back it up" section. Yeah I'll definitely believe that one. Definitely haven't heard that particular line before on other people many times now with no actual evidence to back it up.
 

mesonoxian

Well-known member
According to who? The media who refused to air it and then promptly called the idea of "believe all women" a right wing trap because it was being applied to Joe Biden? That media?

That's a nice story but I'm not sure why it matters.

You do realize anyone can run as a republican right? It's how we got the story of an antipolice satanist running for sheriff and winning because no one bothered to check. It's also technically how we got Trump in the first place, there are no real controls over who can run as one.

Ah the infamous let you grab them by the pussy line. Truly sterling evidence that.

As to the rest, one is from divorce court and if there's one thing I've learned about that particular court it's that anything one hears in it should be taken with a grain of salt due to the ugly nature of divorce proceedings.

And then we get to "women claim they were groped by a rich billionaire but have no evidence to back it up" section. Yeah I'll definitely believe that one. Definitely haven't heard that particular line before on other people many times now with no actual evidence to back it up.
I'm no fan of Joe Biden. The accusations against him came out during the primary and I was most definitely not one of his supporters (Biden was third or fourth from the bottom, depending on how I feel about Harris any given day). Had they been credible, I most certainly wouldn't have downplayed them. But they weren't. Biden was confirmably not present where the attack was supposed to take place.

Franken matters because the claim was that Democrats weren't held to the same standard. But in fact it shows they are actually held to some standard, unlike Republicans.The Democrats have definitely improved since the 1990s. Bill Clinton should have never been allowed to show his face after the things he admitted to, much less the things that were alleged about him. Instead he got to be an elder statesman of the party.

Sure, anybody can run as a Republican. Even a pedophile. And apparently that pedophile can win the Republican primary, receive the support of the party establishment, and continue to insist he won the election despite getting fewer votes and be believed by credulous supporters who think he was literally ordained by God. Sounds familiar.

When multiple people accuse the same person of the same actions and he admits to those actions, I'd say that is good reason to consider those accusations plausible. Especially when the accused already has a reputation as a racist conman, and thus isn't exactly of the most sterling moral character to begin with.
 

Comrade Clod

Gay Space Communist
Sure, anybody can run as a Republican. Even a pedophile. And apparently that pedophile can win the Republican primary, receive the support of the party establishment, and continue to insist he won the election despite getting fewer votes and be believed by credulous supporters who think he was literally ordained by God. Sounds familiar.

Kinda depressing that i initially thought you were talking about a completely seperate republican to trump. But then Roy Moore isn't that far in the past.
 

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
When multiple people accuse the same person of the same actions and he admits to those actions, I'd say that is good reason to consider those accusations plausible. Especially when the accused already has a reputation as a racist conman, and thus isn't exactly of the most sterling moral character to begin with.

IKR? It's truly terrible. I hope that Trump proves the fraud allegations ASAP, so that the pedophile racist conman doesn't become the next US president.
 

Isem

Well-known member
I'm no fan of Joe Biden. The accusations against him came out during the primary and I was most definitely not one of his supporters (Biden was third or fourth from the bottom, depending on how I feel about Harris any given day). Had they been credible, I most certainly wouldn't have downplayed them. But they weren't. Biden was confirmably not present where the attack was supposed to take place.
Considering you seem to think an accusation which had no corroboration from anyone involved and no evidence other then the words of a liar who was financially benefitting from making it was credible I question your standards for what is and isn't credible. This is not the first time someone accusing a democrat presidential candidate was attacked by the media to ensure her story would not be viewed as credible.
Franken matters because the claim was that Democrats weren't held to the same standard. But in fact it shows they are actually held to some standard, unlike Republicans.The Democrats have definitely improved since the 1990s. Bill Clinton should have never been allowed to show his face after the things he admitted to, much less the things that were alleged about him. Instead he got to be an elder statesman of the party.
They've improved so much that they outright said they regret throwing Franken out and used it as a cudgel against one of their presidential candidates. I'm not so sure you want to be relying on it as a defense of a party's character but you do you.
Sure, anybody can run as a Republican. Even a pedophile. And apparently that pedophile can win the Republican primary, receive the support of the party establishment, and continue to insist he won the election despite getting fewer votes and be believed by credulous supporters who think he was literally ordained by God. Sounds familiar.
You overestimate how much the average voter cares to keep up with who's who in politics and what they've done recently when it comes to primaries friend. I've little doubt that most saw the same name they'd voted for before and simply did so again without bothering to check if anything had changed.

Repeatedly saying one won an election one lost is a cross party thing friend. The existence of Stacy Abrams alone will tell you that much. Of course the difference between her and Trump is that he's actually legally contesting it rather then not doing so and still claiming he won. Funny that.

When multiple people accuse the same person of the same actions and he admits to those actions, I'd say that is good reason to consider those accusations plausible. Especially when the accused already has a reputation as a racist conman, and thus isn't exactly of the most sterling moral character to begin with.
Did he now? Or did he simply say that when one is rich and powerful women are more open to advances while speaking in an off the cuff manner with friends? And bluntly no, it does not actually render it believable not even remotely close. If you're a rich/powerful person the only way you're avoiding accusations of that nature is if you go full Mike Pence and never stay alone with a woman. Also conman? If the dude were an actual conman he'd have long since been in jail by now after every security agency did all that it could to find anything they could hang him with and failed miserably.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
Let’s be honest everybody, nobody on either side of the aisle really cares about allegations of sexual harassment, rape, or any other nonsense like that unless a political opponent is accused of it. And, also to be honest, we really shouldn’t care. Who becomes president of the USA can determine the fate of billions of people around the world, can mean the difference between war or peace, between prosperity and poverty, between freedom and oppression. If you support the policies of a candidate, if you think his presidency would be better for the nation and the world, then it’s completely irrational to care whether or not he groped some girls. Also, when it comes to not only someone rich and famous, but a politician who is opposed by powerful forces and organizations, they can find as many women to accuse him of impropriety as need be.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Let’s be honest everybody, nobody on either side of the aisle really cares about allegations of sexual harassment, rape, or any other nonsense like that unless a political opponent is accused of it. And, also to be honest, we really shouldn’t care. Who becomes president of the USA can determine the fate of billions of people around the world, can mean the difference between war or peace, between prosperity and poverty, between freedom and oppression. If you support the policies of a candidate, if you think his presidency would be better for the nation and the world, then it’s completely irrational to care whether or not he groped some girls. Also, when it comes to not only someone rich and famous, but a politician who is opposed by powerful forces and organizations, they can find as many women to accuse him of impropriety as need be.

I do care. I was one of the people who 'held my nose' to vote for Trump in 2016, because there were a number of things about his personal character I didn't like about him. He certainly didn't get my vote in the primary; at the time I would have preferred Carson or Cruz.

But I can tolerate an adulterer in the White House. You'd have to have him running against Hitler for me to vote for a rapist.

There are standards, and the Access Hollywood video did cost Trump some votes. If he hadn't actually delivered on some of his campaign promises, and visibly pushed hard to try to deliver on pretty much all the others, Trump's support would have collapsed.

I'd be just as willing to believe that the accusations against Biden ala Tara Reade were fallacious, if they got the same amount of investigation as those against Kavanaugh, and were similarly proven false. Similarly, I don't believe Bill Clinton raped Monica Lewinsky, though there's certainly serious accusations that he had done so to other women earlier in his career.

Character counts. I would have preferred a more temperate man than Trump, but if a bare-knuckled boxer is the only man that'll fight in that arena, I'll back the bare-knuckled boxer.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
Oh yes, character counts, in large part because character is part of what determines what a politician does in office, whether or not they will do as they promised. It would be nice to have someone highly moral above and beyond merely the political realm as well, but realistically it’s a minor concern.

If you’re in the trenches with another soldier, about to charge the enemy lines while shells are exposing all around, you’re probably not going to care if you find out that he cheated on his wife or groped a few girls. You certainly aren’t going to side with the enemy and against him because of that.

Of course, some people do care about scandals. It’s easier to care about scandals and character attacks when you don’t actually know anything about politics and just have a vague sense of liking or disliking a politician, which is probably the majority of voters.

In this election Biden represented a vast and terrible political machine that would cause far more harm to the nation and to the world than any individual human could. Trump opposed that machine, at least in part, and so his personal flaws were irrelevant to me outside of how it might affect his governance. I suspect that many on the left share this outlook of mine but in reverse.
 

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
Oh yes, character counts, in large part because character is part of what determines what a politician does in office, whether or not they will do as they promised. It would be nice to have someone highly moral above and beyond merely the political realm as well, but realistically it’s a minor concern.

Character should count for much more than that. A truly good politician is also a leader who inspires the citizens and serves as a personal example to strive for. Of course nowadays it's extremely rare in politics, and is probably becoming rarer in the military as well, as the latter also succumbs to a culture of constant politicking all across the nations of the west. But I digress.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top